Malothu Rajini vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 3154 Tel

Telangana High Court

Malothu Rajini vs The State Of Telangana on 18 March, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

             THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

          CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.9015, 9025 and 9033 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by

the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings

against them in C.C.No.2870 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Junior

Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at

Khammam, pertaining to Crime No.270 of 2022 of P.S. Khammam Rural,

registered for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian

Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').

2. Since all the three criminal petitions are arising out of C.C.No.2870

of 2022, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common

order.

3. Heard Ms. R.Sandhya, learned counsel representing

Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

Perused the record.

4. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents, petitioner-

accused No.4 is the brother, petitioner-accused No.5 is the sister of

accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.6 is the husband of petitioner-

accused No.5.

5. The gist of the complaint is that the 2nd respondent-de facto

complainant was married to accused No.1 on 19.06.2021 and it was an

arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was

given. They lived happily for few days. Thereafter, on the instigation of

the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6, accused No.1 started harassing the

de facto complainant physically and mentally demanding additional

dowry and also abused her in filthy language. A panchayat was held

before the elders, however, accused No.1 did not attend the same.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the

present case has been registered against the petitioners-accused Nos.2

to 6 only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes

between the de facto complainant and accused No.1. It is contended that

the petitioners herein are staying away from the de facto complainant

and accused No.1, therefore, there was no occasion or necessity for

them to harass the de facto complainant. It is also contended that except

bald allegations against them, no specific overt acts are attributed to

them.

7. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the present

complaint was filed in 2022, whereas, the marriage of de facto

complainant with accused No.1 was performed in 2021 and if there was

really harassment from the date of marriage, the de facto complainant

should have complained much earlier. The reason for such delay also

remained unexplained. In cases of matrimonial disputes and when there

is a delay of over three months in lodging the complaint, the Investigating

Officer may conduct preliminary enquiry. However, in the present case,

basing on the allegations in the complaint, without conducting any

preliminary inquiry, the Investigating Officer has registered the present

crime against the petitioners on the very same day.

8. In support of her contention, learned counsel relied on the

judgment of Lalitha Kumari v. Government of U.P 1, wherein, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

"120.6 As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes.

(b) Commercial offences.

(c) Medical negligence cases.

(d) Corruption cases.

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay."

Thus, she prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

(2014) 2 SCC 1

9. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have

harassed the de facto complainant from the date of her marriage with

accused No.1 and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint

has been lodged. It is further contended that all the allegations levelled in

the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial,

and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.

Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petitions.

10. For the sake of convenience, Section 498-A of IPC is extracted

hereunder:

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

11. In the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal

and others 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

1992 SCC (Cri) 426

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

12. In the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State

of Telangana and another 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph

Nos.31 and 32 held that:

"31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants."

13. In numerous cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with

similar cases held that making vague and generalised allegations during

matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal

processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a

wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section

498-A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek

2024 INSC 953

compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Therefore, the

Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any prima facie case

against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the

husband and his family members.

14. In the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to

the marriage between the de facto complainant and accused No.1 and it

was also an arranged marriage. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that

no substantial and specific allegations have been made against the

petitioners herein, other than stating that they instigated accused No.1 in

harassing the de facto complainant by demanding more dowry. None of

the petitioners have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the

general allegations made against them. Though the marriage had

happened in the year 2021, the present complaint was lodged in the year

2022. The reason for delay in lodging the complaint remained

unexplained. In cases of matrimonial disputes and when there is a delay

of over 3 months in lodging the complaint, the Investigating Officer may

conduct preliminary enquiry. However, in the present case, basing on the

complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, without conducting any

preliminary enquiry, the Investigating Officer has registered the FIR

against the petitioners herein, on the very same day, which is contrary to

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari's

case (supra).

15. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners herein, who are the

family members of accused No.1, are staying away from the family of

de facto complainant and accused No.1. The de facto complainant and

accused No.1 have set-up a separate family at Madhya Pradesh and

none of the family members of accused No.1 are staying with them. The

petitioners cannot be subjected to prosecution, merely basing on the bald

averments of harassment.

16. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the judgments referred to

above, the petitioners cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and

the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of

specific allegations made against each of them. Hence, the proceedings

against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

17. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed, quashing the

proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 in C.C.No.2870

of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 18.03.2025 rev